The California NAACP has endorsed a November ballot measure to legalize adult recreational use of marijuana, calling the measure a civil rights issue because blacks have a disproportionate number of arrests for marijuana possession compared with whites.

Accompanied by other African American leaders in California, the president of the state NAACP, Alice Huffman, said the current prohibition on marijuana has led to the criminalizing of young people and consequently has hampered the ability of many African Americans to prosper.

The organization is the most mainstream statewide entity to endorse the marijuana measure, Proposition 19, to date.

"This is not a war on the drug lords, this is a war against young men and women of color," Huffman said, adding later that, "Once a young person is arrested and brought under the justice system, he or she is more likely to get caught in the criminal justice system again, further wasting tax dollars."

Huffman and other leaders - including Aubry Stone, president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce - argued that money currently spent on enforcing marijuana laws would be better spent on education.

Prop. 19 would legalize cultivation, possession and transporting marijuana for personal use for people 21 or older. Local governments would be permitted to tax and regulate the production and sale of marijuana. It would still be illegal under federal law.

In announcing support, African American leaders pointed to a report that shows that in the 25 largest counties in California, blacks are arrested for possession of marijuana at rates that are as much as four times as high as those for white people. Those arrested are overwhelmingly young men.

Black people 18 to 25 years old use marijuana less frequently than whites, according to federal data in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The report was written by Harry Levine, a sociology professor at Queens College at the City University of New York, who has researched similar trends in New York City. It was released by the Drug Policy Alliance, which is backing the ballot measure.

"In a nutshell, the police are assigned heavily to patrol only in certain neighborhoods and in those neighborhoods they are looking for certain suspects who are young, who are male," Levine said, adding that police would make more arrests for marijuana possession if they focused on areas with higher concentrations of whites.

Stephen Gutwillig, California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, called the NAACP endorsement a "landmark moment."

"This is the African American community establishment saying 'enough is enough,' " Gutwillig said.

But the support is not shared throughout that community, as many black religious leaders are in opposition.

Bishop Ron Allen, leader of the International Faith Based Coalition and a member of the coalition opposing Prop. 19, said he was "shocked, stunned and surprised" by the endorsement and said it is not a civil rights issue.

"If anyone should know what illicit drugs will do to an underserved community, we expect our civil rights leaders to have a better understanding than anyone else," he said.
Minorities and marijuana arrests

The NAACP endorsed Prop. 19, the recreational marijuana initiative, saying the measure is a civil rights issue. The civil rights group pointed to a study released by the Drug Policy Alliance, which found, among other things:

-- In every one of the 25 largest counties in California, blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites, typically at double, triple or even quadruple the rate of whites.

-- U.S. government studies consistently find that young blacks use marijuana at lower rates than young whites.

-- Marijuana possession arrests have serious consequences. They create permanent "drug arrest" records that can be easily found on the Internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies, licensing boards and banks.

-- Criminal records for marijuana possession severely limit the life chances of the poor, the young, and especially of young blacks and Latinos.

It's going to be interesting how this ballot measure will end. My feelings are that it is the begining of the end. Because if legalization doesn't happen in California. Colorado will be there in 5-10yrs. I also believe every state will have medical MJ laws in another 5-10yrs as well.

Adam Dunn, who has created a multi-million dollar a year business from basically nothing is moving to Denver, from A'dam. He won't be the only one moving back to America either.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/22/smallbusiness/hemp_empire/index.htm

No matter what your beliefs are. The industry is thriving with tons of cash. And it can't be stopped.

BWillie

06-30-2010, 12:58 AM

Can somebody tell me what K3 is? These little potheads that I rent a house to asked me if it's okay if they smoke K3, that it's like pot, but not illegal and you can buy it at gas stations.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 01:04 AM

Can somebody tell me what K3 is? These little potheads that I rent a house to asked me if it's okay if they smoke K3, that it's like pot, but not illegal and you can buy it at gas stations.

They had this story on the news the other day, and the news anchor said "The NCAA has endorsed the November proposition to legalize marijuana." Halfway into the story she stopped and said "I'm sorry, that was the NAACP, not the NCAA." It was pretty funny. Carry on.

BWillie

06-30-2010, 01:12 AM

K2 is synthetic cannabinoids.

yeah, that is what it is. What is the difference?

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 01:16 AM

yeah, that is what it is. What is the difference?

What's the difference? It is subpar from the real thing and a waste of money.

BWillie

06-30-2010, 01:18 AM

What's the difference? It is subpar from the real thing and a waste of money.

It all blows anyway. Weed is a waste of time. I have no idea why the masses love it so much. Make it legal already, who cares. Maybe it will lose it's allure.

Buck

06-30-2010, 01:20 AM

At the risk of sounding racist, maybe just a higher percentage of black people use marijuana.

T-post Tom

06-30-2010, 01:27 AM

And how did the Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans & Frog-Americans get left out, exactly?

It all blows anyway. Weed is a waste of time. I have no idea why the masses love it so much. Make it legal already, who cares. Maybe it will lose it's allure.

Different strokes for different folks. It may blow for you. But tell that to a cancer patient who can't keep food down without it. Tell that to someone with Crohns where nothing else has worked.

I'm of the opposite mindset. I think alcohol is a waste of time. Why drink something that may very well make me feel shitty the next day. That isn't fun. That ****ing sucks balls.

Lose it's allure? Doubt it. Alcohol surely didn't.

BWillie

06-30-2010, 01:34 AM

Different strokes for different folks. It may blow for you. But tell that to a cancer patient who can't keep food down without it. Tell that to someone with Crohns where nothing else has worked.

I'm of the opposite mindset. I think alcohol is a waste of time. Why drink something that may very well make me feel shitty the next day. That isn't fun. That ****ing sucks balls.

Lose it's allure? Doubt it. Alcohol surely didn't.

Eh, I at least have fun when I drink alcohol. Gives me gumption and I just won't sit around all day wasting my life away playing video games and being a loser. All you have to do is do pedialyte bombs and you'll feel like brand new in the morning!

Haha, but you are right. Weed affects people different. It should be legal IMO, and it's less harmful than alcohol. You don't see high people running red lights and t-boning mofuggers as much as you do w/ alkeys

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 01:43 AM

Eh, I at least have fun when I drink alcohol. Gives me gumption and I just won't sit around all day wasting my life away playing video games and being a loser. All you have to do is do pedialyte bombs and you'll feel like brand new in the morning!

Haha, but you are right. Weed affects people different. It should be legal IMO, and it's less harmful than alcohol. You don't see high people running red lights and t-boning mofuggers as much as you do w/ alkeys

The lazy video games playing loser is nothing but a stereotype. It is an easy way to castigate those with lifestyles not the same as yours. Truth be told, those same people who sit around and play video games all day while smoking marijuana are the same ones who will sit around all day and play video games without marijuana. Laziness isn't exclusive to marijuana smokers. Lazy people will be just that, lazy.

The California NAACP has endorsed a November ballot measure to legalize adult recreational use of marijuana, calling the measure a civil rights issue because blacks have a disproportionate number of arrests for marijuana possession compared with whites.

So will they endorse a bill to legalize murder too? Carjacking? Theft?

milkman

06-30-2010, 06:09 AM

So will they endorse a bill to legalize murder too? Carjacking? Theft?

Are you fucking high, dumbass?

What a stupid fucking post.

jjjayb

06-30-2010, 06:21 AM

Are you ****ing high, dumbass?

What a stupid ****ing post.

Umm, no. They are endorsing this bill because there are a disproportionate number of blacks arrested for marijuana use. There are also a disproportionate number of blacks arrested for murder, theft and carjacking as well as numerous other crimes. I think it's a dumb reason to endorse this bill. I guess I'm one of the few who aren't so politically correct I won't state the obvious.

milkman

06-30-2010, 06:31 AM

Umm, no. They are endorsing this bill because there are a disproportionate number of blacks arrested for marijuana use. There are also a disproportionate number of blacks arrested for murder, theft and carjacking as well as numerous other crimes. I think it's a dumb reason to endorse this bill. I guess I'm one of the few who aren't so politically correct I won't state the obvious.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, murder is exactly the same as smoking pot.

I don't give a rat's ass why you drew the comparison.

It's fucking stupid.

sedated

06-30-2010, 06:45 AM

finally, a black initiative that will help everybody

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 07:02 AM

At the risk of sounding racist, maybe just a higher percentage of black people use marijuana.

From the OP:

Black people 18 to 25 years old use marijuana less frequently than whites, according to federal data in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

jjjayb

06-30-2010, 08:01 AM

I'm sorry.

Yeah, murder is exactly the same as smoking pot.

I don't give a rat's ass why you drew the comparison.

It's ****ing stupid.

Not adressing the problem of drug use rather than just giving up and legalizing it is "fucking stupid".

sedated

06-30-2010, 08:14 AM

Not adressing the problem of drug use rather than just giving up and legalizing it is "****ing stupid".

when the "drug" use isn't a "problem", then you end up in an endless costly "drug war" that benefits no one and makes "criminals" out of ordinary harmless people.

banning pot was stupid and unproductive from the time the first tax act was passed. it was racist in its conception (toward mexicans), so it seems fitting that an anti-racism group contributes to it getting overturned.

the problem was never the "drug", it was always the law that sought to "protect us" from it. therefore the problem will never go away until the law is taken away.

Funny, i seen one of these a few weekend ago. Though it wasnt as slickly constructed as this one.

luv

06-30-2010, 08:23 AM

The benefits of legalizing it far outweigh the benefits of keeping it illegal. No, I don't smoke it.

Treat it like we do alcohol. Tax it and put restrictions on what you can do while you're able to be proven to be high.

philfree

06-30-2010, 08:24 AM

"This is not a war on the drug lords, this is a war against young men and women,"

This is what it should have said. I guess they don't care about the whities.

If you would actually put someone in a cage for smoking pot then you are a monster.

PhilFree:arrow:

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 08:27 AM

The benefits of legalizing it far outweigh the benefits of keeping it illegal. No, I don't smoke it.

Treat it like we do alcohol. Tax it and put restrictions on what you can do while you're able to be proven to be high.

Is it possible to tell (medically) if someone is currently stoned? THC stays in the system for up to 30 days so I do not know that there is a way to know if someone is currently under the influence. When someone can tell me how this can be accomplished, I will believe it can be legalized. Otherwise, a MADD type group will keep it from being legalized due to safety concerns, especially when it comes to driving.

luv

06-30-2010, 08:29 AM

Is it possible to tell (medically) if someone is currently stoned? THC stays in the system for up to 30 days so I do not know that there is a way to know if someone is currently under the influence. When someone can tell me how this can be accomplished, I will believe it can be legalized.

Agreed. I was thinking about that point as I reread it. We have breathilizers (sp?) and legal limits for blood alchohol content. Not sure how they would be able to determine marijuana use. Maybe create something that analyzes the level of THC in a strand of hair? Something portable that could be used on the spot.

Fish

06-30-2010, 08:39 AM

The benefits of legalizing it far outweigh the benefits of keeping it illegal. No, I don't smoke it.

Treat it like we do alcohol. Tax it and put restrictions on what you can do while you're able to be proven to be high.

The problem is who is being benefited. The government already has a very profitable system in place to deal with MJ. They make a shitload of money off it. It would cost them a fortune to halt that, and setup a completely new system that would eventually generate tax income for them. In the end, the government would likely make more off the taxation and regulation of MJ, but they don't want to disrupt their cash cow and make this huge change, and not profit from it until years down the road when the new system finally starts seeing returns.

And then there's the problem of "proven to be high".... Right now they have no simple way to test for that. If they had a device like the cheap handheld breathalyzer that worked for THC, it would be different. But right now, they have no way of testing for it. And the testing itself isn't as easy as alcohol. Alcohol is fairly easy to test for, and you get a nice blood alcohol level percentage. Not so easy with THC. Normally all they can tell is whether you have any in your system at all. How much is much more difficult to tell.

Fish

06-30-2010, 08:41 AM

On top of that, what's the government do with the millions of people in prison right now that are there for MJ? If it's legalized, do they just let those dudes walk? Dealing with shit like that is a litigation nightmare...

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 08:44 AM

On top of that, what's the government do with the millions of people in prison right now that are there for MJ? If it's legalized, do they just let those dudes walk? Dealing with shit like that is a litigation nightmare...

I think you have to leave them there. They were sentenced under the laws at the time of infraction.

milkman

06-30-2010, 08:52 AM

Not adressing the problem of drug use rather than just giving up and legalizing it is "****ing stupid".

I'm not debating the merits of legalizing pot.

Frankly, I don't care.

I'm telling you that drawing a comparison of legalizing pot to murder is a stupid ****ing analogy.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 08:53 AM

IMO marijuana DUI is a non-issue being made into a issue for further prohibition. Gotta cut out the bullshit the govt feeds you sometime.

Simply put. Marijuana is less toxic than tylenol. And we sell tylenol to children

sedated

06-30-2010, 08:57 AM

The problem is who is being benefited. The government already has a very profitable system in place to deal with MJ. They make a shitload of money off it. It would cost them a fortune to halt that, and setup a completely new system that would eventually generate tax income for them. In the end, the government would likely make more off the taxation and regulation of MJ, but they don't want to disrupt their cash cow and make this huge change, and not profit from it until years down the road when the new system finally starts seeing returns.

How would immediate legalization and taxation delay the government’s income? Seems it would take longer to get fine money out of a jailed “criminal” than for Bob the Mechanic to pay the 10% tax and be on his way.

And I want to see figures on the “cost” vs “profit” of having pot illegal. I’ve heard it both ways – keeping “criminals” in jail costs taxpayers X dollars a year, and then someone else says the gov’t is making a killing on fines and court costs.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:00 AM

I think you have to leave them there. They were sentenced under the laws at the time of infraction.

Absolutley not IMO. Commutation of sentence of those only in for possession. We spend enough on locking people up. Considering the overcrowding problem we have now. It's a no brainer. Send them home.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:02 AM

IMO marijuana DUI is a non-issue being made into a issue for further prohibition. Gotta cut out the bullshit the govt feeds you sometime.

Simply put. Marijuana is less toxic than tylenol. And we sell tylenol to children

As i've said in previous posts, driving high just makes you more alert almost to the point of paranoia, causing you to take more time at a stop sign then normal to make sure there are no cars/pedestrians.

Alcohol just give you "beer balls" in which you think your in GTII and drive wreckless. I wouldn't want anyone driving under either ideally, but if given the choice, I'd take the Pot head driver of the the drinker any day.

Weed gets a really bad rap.

jjjayb

06-30-2010, 09:03 AM

I'm not debating the merits of legalizing pot.

Frankly, I don't care.

I'm telling you that drawing a comparison of legalizing pot to murder is a stupid ****ing analogy.

And I'm telling you that pushing to legalize something because one group is more commonly arrested for it than another is stupid. Wether it be something as minor as jaywalking or as serious as murder.

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 09:04 AM

IMO marijuana DUI is a non-issue being made into a issue for further prohibition. Gotta cut out the bullshit the govt feeds you sometime.

Simply put. Marijuana is less toxic than tylenol. And we sell tylenol to children

It is a mind altering substance. Tylenol will not give you a "high" that can interfere with your ability to make decisions.

As a regular smoker, I would love to see this legalized. However I am enough of a realist to recognize that there are issues that the general public will be concerned with. One of the biggest is how it affects the ability to drive safely.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:04 AM

Fuck the money. That's the problem. It isn't about what is right or wrong. It's about money. I'm not concerned about the govt and it's take. I'm concerned about what is the right policy for the citizens of this country. That's worth more than the money to me.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:04 AM

Absolutley not IMO. Commutation of sentence of those only in for possession. We spend enough on locking people up. Considering the overcrowding problem we have now. It's a no brainer. Send them home.

Meh. I don't know. Maybe certain cases can be up for a re-trial or something. But people who were pushing MJ by the pound...I don't know about that one. I think they should probably serve their sentence.

Bugeater

06-30-2010, 09:05 AM

How would immediate legalization and taxation delay the government’s income? Seems it would take longer to get fine money out of a jailed “criminal” than for Bob the Mechanic to pay the 10% tax and be on his way.

And I want to see figures on the “cost” vs “profit” of having pot illegal. I’ve heard it both ways – keeping “criminals” in jail costs taxpayers X dollars a year, and then someone else says the gov’t is making a killing on fines and court costs.
The may not actually be profiting so to speak, but it's job security for many people who work in the legal system.

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 09:06 AM

As i've said in previous posts, driving high just makes you more alert almost to the point of paranoia, causing you to take more time at a stop sign then normal to make sure there are no cars/pedestrians.

Alcohol just give you "beer balls" in which you think your in GTII and drive wreckless. I wouldn't want anyone driving under either ideally, but if given the choice, I'd take the Pot head driver of the the drinker any day.

Weed gets a really bad rap.

Until some idiot passes out after taking a toke while driving and smashes into a school bus or something equally stupid. You know it will happen and it won't be the fault of the idiot behind the wheel, it will be the fault of the drug he was ingesting.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:09 AM

It is a mind altering substance. Tylenol will not give you a "high" that can interfere with your ability to make decisions.

As a regular smoker, I would love to see this legalized. However I am enough of a realist to recognize that there are issues that the general public will be concerned with. One of the biggest is how it affects the ability to drive safely.

And weed should be subject to a DUI and fall under the same guidelines as booze. Trouble is, how do you tell if someone is high or just tired?

every smoker says the same thing: I can drive high, but i wouldn't trust anyone else to do it. Personally, I use to drive high sometimes (i don't smoke anymore) but I would never smoke and drive high at night. I just wouldn't, i knew I couldn't see worth a shit as it was.

IMO, with weed, unlike alcohol, people can still understand their limitations and know when they can and can't drive.

Ugly Duck

06-30-2010, 09:09 AM

finally, a black initiative that will help everybody

You mean this'll make it legal for whites as well? Good! I thought it was just going to be for disproportionately arrested folks...

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:09 AM

It is a mind altering substance. Tylenol will not give you a "high" that can interfere with your ability to make decisions.

As a regular smoker, I would love to see this legalized. However I am enough of a realist to recognize that there are issues that the general public will be concerned with. One of the biggest is how it affects the ability to drive safely.

I think it is overstatement that it affects the ability to drive safely when there isn't really any proof otherwise. But we can agree to disagree.

Personally I find talking on a cell phone isn't any more distracting that driving while high.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:10 AM

Until some idiot passes out after taking a toke while driving and smashes into a school bus or something equally stupid. You know it will happen and it won't be the fault of the idiot behind the wheel, it will be the fault of the drug he was ingesting.

Oh, no doubt. And it would be the fault of the idiot behind the wheel. He took the drug. We dont blame the booze, we blame the driver.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:11 AM

And weed should be subject to a DUI and fall under the same guidelines as booze. Trouble is, how do you tell if someone is high or just tired?

DRE. Drug Recognition Examination. It's already in place.

Bugeater

06-30-2010, 09:11 AM

I think it is overstatement that it affects the ability to drive safely when there isn't really any proof otherwise. But we can agree to disagree.

Personally I find talking on a cell phone isn't any more distracting that driving while high.
Frankly, I'd rather be on the road with a bunch of stoners than people yapping on their damn phones.

Fish

06-30-2010, 09:12 AM

How would immediate legalization and taxation delay the government’s income? Seems it would take longer to get fine money out of a jailed “criminal” than for Bob the Mechanic to pay the 10% tax and be on his way.

And I want to see figures on the “cost” vs “profit” of having pot illegal. I’ve heard it both ways – keeping “criminals” in jail costs taxpayers X dollars a year, and then someone else says the gov’t is making a killing on fines and court costs.

Because it would in no way be an "immediate legalization and taxation" process. The government would essentially be creating a completely new department with thousands of changes to existing laws, and creation of another thousand new laws. It would require a bajillion hours of paperwork, court hearings, and bureaucratic BS just to be voted on, approved and implemented into law. They would have to shift resources, train new employees on new tasks, technology, and processes. Likely requiring new buildings, equipment, etc. Just getting that established would likely take years. And then when the system did go into place, it would take many many more years for them to make enough money back to pay for the implementation of the new department. Only after all that would they start seeing actual profit.

All of this would be moving at the speed of government. It could take forever.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:12 AM

Meh. I don't know. Maybe certain cases can be up for a re-trial or something. But people who were pushing MJ by the pound...I don't know about that one. I think they should probably serve their sentence.

A pound really isn't that much anymore. It's a drop in the bucket IMO

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:13 AM

I think it is overstatement that it affects the ability to drive safely when there isn't really any proof otherwise. But we can agree to disagree.

Personally I find talking on a cell phone isn't any more distracting that driving while high.

The problem is when these people drive high and talk on the cell phone. I can sit here and say that I am more cautious when I drive high. I just am. BUT, I am a better driver sober. And not everyone will be a more cautious driver.

I wouldn't want people driving high. If they were, i wouldn't be up in arms about it and making a big deal. But, i would recomend that they didn't drive high.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:14 AM

A pound really isn't that much anymore. It's a drop in the bucket IMO

You know what i mean.

Priest31kc

06-30-2010, 09:14 AM

Different strokes for different folks. It may blow for you. But tell that to a cancer patient who can't keep food down without it. Tell that to someone with Crohns where nothing else has worked.

I'm of the opposite mindset. I think alcohol is a waste of time. Why drink something that may very well make me feel shitty the next day. That isn't fun. That ****ing sucks balls.

Lose it's allure? Doubt it. Alcohol surely didn't.

Totally agree.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:16 AM

Frankly, I'd rather be on the road with a bunch of stoners than people yapping on their damn phones.

me too

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:20 AM

The problem is when these people drive high and talk on the cell phone. I can sit here and say that I am more cautious when I drive high. I just am. BUT, I am a better driver sober. And not everyone will be a more cautious driver.

I wouldn't want people driving high. If they were, i wouldn't be up in arms about it and making a big deal. But, i would recomend that they didn't drive high.

We sit here all day and cite a hypothetical and it still won't get us anywhere. What about the people who eat and drive? Should we ban people eating a mcdouble while driving? That's impossible IMO.

milkman

06-30-2010, 09:20 AM

And I'm telling you that pushing to legalize something because one group is more commonly arrested for it than another is stupid. Wether it be something as minor as jaywalking or as serious as murder.

And I'm telling you I don't give a rat's ass about the reason for your stupidity.

You are simply trying to justify stupidity.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:21 AM

You know what i mean.

No. I really don't. If someone is convicted of just possession. Who really cares about the quantity

Ugly Duck

06-30-2010, 09:22 AM

The problem is when these people drive high and talk on the cell phone.

And then there's the people that stay up all night partying & then drink booze & smoke weed & talk on the cell phone while driving.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:23 AM

We sit here all day and cite a hypothetical and it still won't get us anywhere. What about the people who eat and drive? Should we ban people eating a mcdouble while driving? That's impossible IMO.

That's not my point. My point is smoking weed certainly won't help you be a better driver. Your reaction time slows down. Mix that with drivers that are already shitty as it is, sprinkle in some distractions and you're bound to see an increase in accidents.

However, I don't think we'll see a huge increase, but if we're adding another mind altering substance, that should only increase the amount of DUI's.

Stupid people are going to be stupid.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:25 AM

No. I really don't. If someone is convicted of just possession. Who really cares about the quantity

At some point you have to draw a line. I think a pound is more than just possession. Why would you need a pound? That's distribution.

luv

06-30-2010, 09:26 AM

Because it would in no way be an "immediate legalization and taxation" process. The government would essentially be creating a completely new department with thousands of changes to existing laws, and creation of another thousand new laws. It would require a bajillion hours of paperwork, court hearings, and bureaucratic BS just to be voted on, approved and implemented into law. They would have to shift resources, train new employees on new tasks, technology, and processes. Likely requiring new buildings, equipment, etc. Just getting that established would likely take years. And then when the system did go into place, it would take many many more years for them to make enough money back to pay for the implementation of the new department. Only after all that would they start seeing actual profit.

All of this would be moving at the speed of government. It could take forever.

How long did it take to legalize alcohol?

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:27 AM

That's not my point. My point is smoking weed certainly won't help you be a better driver. Your reaction time slows down. Mix that with drivers that are already shitty as it is, sprinkle in some distractions and you're bound to see an increase in accidents.

However, I don't think we'll see a huge increase, but if we're adding another mind altering substance, that should only increase the amount of DUI's.

Stupid people are going to be stupid.

That's the thing you see. You aren't adding a mind altering substance. It's already out there.

Dave Lane

06-30-2010, 09:28 AM

The may not actually be profiting so to speak, but it's job security for many people who work in the legal system.

Ding ding ding and we have the ultimate winner. Decriminalizing weed reduces law enforcement job security so they will fight it to the bitter end.

And I think the tax revenues would be massive in comparision to a few court fines. Use the revenue to fund awareness ads and finding a test for exceptionally high THC in the system.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:31 AM

That's the thing you see. You aren't adding a mind altering substance. It's already out there.

You're making it easier to get. If it's easier to get, more people will be prone to doing it. It's not like we're talking about Heroin here, where people wouldn't touch it if it were legal or not.

It's weed. Weed is "cool". People want to smoke it because it's a nice high and it's relatively harmless. So, people who may not have had access to it before, now would. We would have more people smoking which=more people driving high which = more DUI's/potential for accidents.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:33 AM

At some point you have to draw a line. I think a pound is more than just possession. Why would you need a pound? That's distribution.

Just because someone has a pound doesn't mean it's for distribution. What if someone grew it for themselves and at harvest they had 2 pounds. It takes a while to grow.

Hell, in Canada there are people who are legal to medically consume 7, 14, 21, 28 grams a day. A pound for the 28 gramers would last 16days. It takes much longer to produce a pound than 16 days.

Bugeater

06-30-2010, 09:34 AM

How long did it take to legalize alcohol?
I'm no history major, but I don't think alcohol has was ever illegal outside of Prohibition. At least not in this country.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:37 AM

You're making it easier to get. If it's easier to get, more people will be prone to doing it. It's not like we're talking about Heroin here, where people wouldn't touch it if it were legal or not.

It's weed. Weed is "cool". People want to smoke it because it's a nice high and it's relatively harmless. So, people who may not have had access to it before, now would. We would have more people smoking which=more people driving high which = more DUI's/potential for accidents.

Easier to get? I doubt that. It's easy to get now. Everyone knows some who to get pot from. Even if you think you don't

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:37 AM

Just because someone has a pound doesn't mean it's for distribution. What if someone grew it for themselves and at harvest they had 2 pounds. It takes a while to grow.

Hell, in Canada there are people who are legal to medically consume 7, 14, 21, 28 grams a day. A pound for the 28 gramers would last 16days. It takes much longer to produce a pound than 16 days.

If they are in jail for distribution, they should stay in jail for distribution. If we just let them all out, how many big time drug dealers will we have back on our streets?

It doesn't make any sense to just let them walk. We're not talking about that Bob Marley kid down the street. We're talking about big time distributers that may even have ties to drug cartels. I wouldn't want those people back in my hood.

luv

06-30-2010, 09:39 AM

I'm no history major, but I don't think alcohol has was ever illegal outside of Prohibition. At least not in this country.

True. I guess it was just too difficult to make it illegal than it was to keep it legal.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:39 AM

Easier to get? I doubt that. It's easy to get now. Everyone knows some who to get pot from. Even if you think you don't

I doubt that dude. There are plenty or sheltered kids out there who don't have access to it. Not everyone has a Pot head friend. It's one thing if someone can just walk into 7-11 and buy some bud, another if they have to call a friend who has to call a friend who has to call a freind...and then wait for a call back and then go 20 miles east to pick it up....

SDChiefs

06-30-2010, 09:40 AM

At some point you have to draw a line. I think a pound is more than just possession. Why would you need a pound? That's distribution.

If you get caught with a pound it is, at the very least, possesion with intent to sell. I don't know for a fact but I would be willing to bet, no one has ever got "possession" having that quantity. Over an oz and it is automatically tried as "intent."

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:40 AM

If they are in jail for distribution, they should stay in jail for distribution. If we just let them all out, how many big time drug dealers will we have back on our streets?

It doesn't make any sense to just let them walk. We're not talking about that Bob Marley kid down the street. We're talking about big time distributers that may even have ties to drug cartels. I wouldn't want those people back in my hood.

I'm pretty sure I said just for possession. But I don't look at it all doom and gloomy. I look at it how many non-taxpaying capitalists will now become tax paying capitalists

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:42 AM

If you get caught with a pound it is, at the very least, possesion with intent to sell. I don't know for a fact but I would be willing to bet, no one has ever got "possession" having that quantity. Over an oz and it is automatically tried as "intent."

And I think it should stay that way.

I want bud legalized, but I don't want people taking advantage of it either. The average smoker doesn't carry weed by the pound. They just don't.

sedated

06-30-2010, 09:43 AM

Because it would in no way be an "immediate legalization and taxation" process. The government would essentially be creating a completely new department with thousands of changes to existing laws, and creation of another thousand new laws. It would require a bajillion hours of paperwork, court hearings, and bureaucratic BS just to be voted on, approved and implemented into law. They would have to shift resources, train new employees on new tasks, technology, and processes. Likely requiring new buildings, equipment, etc. Just getting that established would likely take years. And then when the system did go into place, it would take many many more years for them to make enough money back to pay for the implementation of the new department. Only after all that would they start seeing actual profit.

All of this would be moving at the speed of government. It could take forever.

When the government is acting in its own interest, they can make things happen pretty quick. Decriminalization was effective pretty fast in Cali and Colo. And the Patriot act was seemingly enacted overnight.

And I'm sure the government could put some time limits on it, like it will still be illegal until 2012 so they can setup the infrastructure.

But that's trusting the gov't to use common sense and good planning, which clearly is not possible.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:43 AM

I doubt that dude. There are plenty or sheltered kids out there who don't have access to it. Not everyone has a Pot head friend. It's one thing if someone can just walk into 7-11 and buy some bud, another if they have to call a friend who has to call a friend who has to call a freind...and then wait for a call back and then go 20 miles east to pick it up....

You don't have to personally know the person. Everyone knows a person, who knows a person.

I would not advocate having it in 7-11's. I would advocate having it in a store similar to a liquor store where adults are allowed to purchase it in a safe environment.

sedated

06-30-2010, 09:43 AM

And I think it should stay that way.

I want bud legalized, but I don't want people taking advantage of it either. The average smoker doesn't carry weed by the pound. They just don't.

there would be no reason to have weight anymore.

Detoxing

06-30-2010, 09:44 AM

I'm pretty sure I said just for possession. But I don't look at it all doom and gloomy. I look at it how many non-taxpaying capitalists will now become tax paying capitalists

Im not looking at it "doomy and gloomy". I want it legalized. But im also aware that there will be some draw backs.

Fish

06-30-2010, 09:44 AM

How long did it take to legalize alcohol?

Alcohol was legal up until 1920. When they prohibited alcohol in 1920, it took 13 years for it to be overturned again.

Under substantial pressure from the temperance movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement#United_States), the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 16, 1920. Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.
The "Volstead Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act)", the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) over President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson)'s veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto) on October 28, 1919 and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor.<sup id="cite_ref-nih2006_0-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#cite_note-nih2006-0)</sup> Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, it did little to enforce the law. By 1925, in New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakeasy) clubs.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#cite_note-1)</sup>
While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means.<sup id="cite_ref-t100524_2-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#cite_note-t100524-2)</sup>
Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression), especially in large cities. On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt) signed into law an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cullen-Harrison_Act), allowing the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages.
On December 5, 1933, the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.

luv

06-30-2010, 09:46 AM

When the government is acting in its own interest, they can make things happen pretty quick. Decriminalization was effective pretty fast in Cali and Colo.

And I'm sure the government could put some time limits on it, like it will still be illegal until 2012 so they can setup the infrastructure.

But that's trusting the gov't to use common sense and good planning, which clearly is not possible.

And I don't see it taking long to recoup on any costs. Even if it's highly taxed, it will be hard to keep it on the shelves, especially at first. And think of the trade possibilities with countries who grow it in abundance.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:47 AM

And I think it should stay that way.

I want bud legalized, but I don't want people taking advantage of it either. The average smoker doesn't carry weed by the pound. They just don't.

So what about the ones who aren't average smokers? Should they be held to the same quantities as someone who is average? Should alcohol drinkers be only allowed to have a six pack or a pint becasue someone may think more than that is excessive? I'll leave an adult to make their own decision on what they wish to consume and how much they wish to consume.

What in your eyes is an average amount?

sedated

06-30-2010, 09:47 AM

While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means.

I’m curious of the details of this tidbit…

Bugeater

06-30-2010, 09:49 AM

True. I guess it was just too difficult to make it illegal than it was to keep it legal.
Which brings up a good point, I do think there is a fear out there that if it is legalized, and it for whatever reason turns out to be a huge mistake, there's no taking it back again without a fight. Once that ship sails, it's going to be damn hard to turn it back around.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 09:49 AM

Im not looking at it "doomy and gloomy". I want it legalized. But im also aware that there will be some draw backs.

Sure you do. You stated you see a rise in use which will cause more traffic accidents. I don't see that thought process as, well, positive.

So what about the ones who aren't average smokers? Should they be held to the same quantities as someone who is average? Should alcohol drinkers be only allowed to have a six pack or a pint becasue someone may think more than that is excessive? I'll leave an adult to make their own decision on what they wish to consume and how much they wish to consume.

What in your eyes is an average amount?

I don't believe there will be distribution charges for weed anymore. If I were to buy a carton of smokes and turnaround and sell them, it wouldn't be illegal.

Saggysack

06-30-2010, 10:08 AM

I don't believe there will be distribution charges for weed anymore. If I were to buy a carton of smokes and turnaround and sell them, it wouldn't be illegal.

That was always a ticky tack charge anyway. Just to make prison sentences longer and take more tax dollars out of your pocket paying for it. Don't you just love the private prison industry?

We are the only country in the world where we make a profit off imprisoning people. We produce prisoners in this country like no other country out there. Even more than China

ElGringo

06-30-2010, 10:14 AM

I don't believe there will be distribution charges for weed anymore. If I were to buy a carton of smokes and turnaround and sell them, it wouldn't be illegal.

Now, I am not up on all laws in the states, but I believe it would be illegal as I thought you had to have a license to sell cigarettes (or anything with age restrictions).

Fishpicker

06-30-2010, 10:16 AM

there is a way to test if someone is under the influence of marijuana. its a swab that is applied orally and then put in a small tube with some liquid. (i don't know what the liquid is) the liquid changes color if there are carcinogens in the saliva sample on the swab.

in regards to the OP...

Id like to see simple possession made legal or tolerated and everything else remain the same. driving while intoxicated by THC would still be illegal, employers could still test and refuse to hire pot-heads. possessing weed while committing any other crime would bring about additional charges. and possessing/transporting both weed and firearms would be strictly forbidden. Busting people for roaches/remnants and putting them in the system is stupid and wasteful.

Hydrae

06-30-2010, 10:30 AM

there is a way to test if someone is under the influence of marijuana. its a swab that is applied orally and then put in a small tube with some liquid. (i don't know what the liquid is) the liquid changes color if there are carcinogens in the saliva sample on the swab.

in regards to the OP...

Id like to see simple possession made legal or tolerated and everything else remain the same. driving while intoxicated by THC would still be illegal, employers could still test and refuse to hire pot-heads. possessing weed while committing any other crime would bring about additional charges. and possessing/transporting both weed and firearms would be strictly forbidden. Busting people for roaches/remnants and putting them in the system is stupid and wasteful.

Can somebody tell me what K3 is? These little potheads that I rent a house to asked me if it's okay if they smoke K3, that it's like pot, but not illegal and you can buy it at gas stations.

It sucks.......takes a LOT of it to get as high as a MJ hit would.

IMO it's not worth it.

Consistent1

06-30-2010, 12:15 PM

I feel like there would always be an underground trade.Evading taxes,lower prices,potency,etc.I have no problem with it being legal,but there are gonna be a lot of issues.
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief

06-30-2010, 12:17 PM

And I think it should stay that way.

I want bud legalized, but I don't want people taking advantage of it either. The average smoker doesn't carry weed by the pound. They just don't.

Some people shop at Sams club and some shop at WalMart.

As far as weed goes, it shouldn't matter how much someone has.

ForeverChiefs58

06-30-2010, 04:50 PM

this is cool to look at no matter what your on
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3873/e035a08e616468d1b0500bc12dcc11e9qo4.gif

RedNFeisty

06-30-2010, 08:07 PM

I want to see marijuana legalized, but not so some young dummies can stay out of jail, but so I can end my day with a fatty! I really do not like liquor, plus I like the high from a jay much more then I do from a drink.

I do agree that the money used to jail potheads could be put to better use, like education.